On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 09:20 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: […] > Go is CSP - isn't that different from Actor?
CSP certainly is very different from actors, it's in the synchronization structure. Go's model isn't CSP per se, it is a more or less the same thing developed by Pike over the years. At it's coarsest: An actor processes a message from it's message drop as and when it wishes and send messages to other actors it know the message drop for asynchronously. Processes in CSP rendezvous in order to pass messages down a one-to-one channel, which has no buffering. Modern CSP allows one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one and many-to-many channels with or without buffering. CSP processes with many-to-one channels with large buffering can appear very like actors. Actors that are effectively event loops can be made to look an awful lot like CSP. The are different but there are shades of grey (no not that sort of activity :-) so it is easy to see how people might get confused. The third player here is dataflow, and this is increasingly used for "Big Data" and might be worth thinking about in std.parallelism. An operator (a process as in CSP, but the whole model comes from 1970s dataflow computer research hence operator) is event driven. An operator springs into action when a pattern of data-readiness on it's inputs occurs. It them computes and outputs results on it's output channels. We like dataflow. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
